Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 2:31 am

I've been rather obssessed with the idea of ecosystem lately.. and how it effects our attempts to find suitable companions.. and then I came across this rather interesting video today..

http://io9.com/5984039/why-finding-love ... telligence

Some one used Drake's Equation to solve Fermi's Paradox but applied it to the application of match making.. It's too mathematically specialized for me but it's interesting to note that out of a city the size of Manhatten the hypothetical Ann only has about 900 potentially suitable matches.. talk about finding a needle in a haystack.. It's about a 1 in 10,000 chance of you actually finding one of them.. especially if you live inside the 22.9 square miles of the island itself... so hey, better than the Powerball anyway..

But imagine you live in a place where only 60% even graduated from Highschool let alone having anything close to that 33% with a college education.. or a place where the entire state's population is roughly the same as what lives in that 22.9 square miles.. but in 59,000square miles.. No wonder i can't get a date.. There may be smart people here.. but I'd have to hunt for them all over the state!



rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 3:07 am

so for instance now that i've had a minute to sit down and try and figure it out for myself..


the total population size of my "Town" is about 14,000.. I don't have any idea how they got their encounter rate so I'm just gonna skip that... but they have to be in my same "Age Bracket" meaning they have to be a millenieal (anyone born between 1983 and 2013) which is about 30% of the US population.. but since we don't want to include anyone under 18.. the cut off is 1995.. but for my sake I'm gonna say 1993. meaning anyone born AFTER 1983 but before 1993 which is 1/3rd of the total Milleneal pool.. or about 10% of the population of the US entirely.. being in my age range..

Np = Target population, in this case my town with a population of 14,000 people
Fg = Target Gender in this case females which is just about 50%
Fs = Average number of Americans who are single at any given time is .44%
Fe = Encounter rate but I have no idea how to calculate that but given the small size of my target population it's pretty reasonable I'd encounter almost everyone on a fairly decent basis as theres just not that many places to go in town.
Fy = Age, in this case for me about 10%, anyone between the ages of 20 and 30
fl = Language which is about 98% English speakers
Fa = % I find attractive.. This takes it's own special equation. Target pop X Gender X Ethnicity X Age X Obesity which leaves me with about.. .08% attractive rate
Fa2 = the % who find me attractive.. I'd say is slightly higher since I actually get quite a fair number of people I don't consider attractive.. hitting on me.. so say .4%
Fi = Most important factor in my case would be non religious which is about 13% of the state of georgia



N= 14,000 x .50 x .44 x .10 x .98 x .08 x .4 x .13 = 1.3% of the population as my approximate dating pool.. and considering she just broke up with me.. I think it's safe to say I'm fuck-ed.

Even if I up the numbers to include the entire state.. sooo..

10,000,000 x.50 x.44 x.10 x.95 x.08 x.4 x.13 = about 870 potential matches in an area thats nearly 60,000 square miles, and that's before we start to factor in the secondary considerations such as things we have in common, or both enjoy spending time doing. hooooooly mooooly...

So.. suffice to say I need to get the hell out of dodge.. since the biggest killer of my chances my "Attractiveness" scale and the really sad part is I didn't even get that specific.. all I want is them to be 1) Female 2) White 3) not Obese 4) in my age bracket.. I probably should have included "Must not have kids" on that too.. but I think having a >1% attractiveness rating is limiting enough on it's own.. holy s**t.



rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 3:49 am

I can't help it but I'm really hung up on this now.. also I found out that 53% of all women between 15 and 45 had at least one child in the state of Georgia. So that basically means I can do this 870 x.53 and wind up with about 461.1 potential matches in an area measuring 59,000sq miles. waaaaaahhhh


That basically means that, just with my BASE level requirements.. things which are not negotiable at all.

1) Female, 2) White, 3) between 20 and 30, 4) not obese, 5) No kids, 6) Not religious... and I get 461... Still not a terrible number but just the geography involved kills it.. I really wish I could figure out how to calculate the encounter rate...

Now on the other hand if I use Seattle where my sister lives

Attractiveness = 608,660 x.50 x.67 x.75 x.12 x.47 = 608,660/8625 = .7%
608,660 x.50 x.44 x.12 x.95 x.7 x.7 x.53 (who in this case have a BA, rather than being non religious) I'm left with just about the same number of potential matches in a single metropolitan area of 140square miles as I have in the ENTIRE state of Georgia. I just realized I needed to subtract out the statistical average for women in that age bracket who are Lesbians or not cis-gendered.. sooo that removes about 10% of my potential matches.. which is good cause one of those is my sister.. Still.. I'd have a statistically better chance of finding (not to mention a much better chance of encountering the hypothetical missus) a girlfriend in Seattle than I do in the entire state of georgia. Just confirms what I've long thought.. that being in a very racially diverse place with lots of poverty (ergo obesity) and low educational attainment levels is what's really f*****g up my life...


I never would have imagined lol..



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Feb 2013, 7:08 am

looks like you're overthinking it. when i got married, my (ex) husband was working on a master's degree and was a high school dropout. but i kept my mind sharp by reading science journals and such, and we had quite deep philosophical conversations. i personally think that you can't just assume that someone is not compatible based on a factor like that. we also had divergent religious beliefs and such. i went back t university later on.

so i think you are limiting yourself rather a lot, and assuming a lack of compatibility based on certain factors. you are painting yourself into a corner, basically. that's entirely your own prerogative, but you can't make it look like circumstances are working against you when you have set your own criteria for what makes someone compatible.

EDIT: i do see that you didn't include education and no kids as criteria in your calculations, but it's listed in the your OP. i should also add that i suggested to you long ago that moving might be a good idea to expand your dating pool. it could work.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 9:26 am

Well two things.. first obviously yes you're right I'm overthinking it cause that's what I do. Also, at least 50% of all statistics is BS.

With Georgia I included "No religion" rather than Educational attainment since it was a better over all fit.. I really don't require my potential mate to have a higher education degree, though I'd prefer it, I do however require them not to be a serious practitioner of any religion.. I don't want any arguments on that subject... when it came to my calculations for seattle I couldn't find those statistics so used the ones I could find, that is, people who had a BA.. I know that basically these statistics have to be wrong just like the original ones in the video have to be wrong.. but I also know from my own attempts at figuring it out that they also aren't that wrong. So with that in mind... my potential for finding a mate in Seattle could actually be higher in reality since I don't care if you're a highschool drop out so long as you don't worship Jesus, Allah or Yahweh.

As far as it being my prerogative.. You're right it is.. but I have no interest in overweight people, people with kids, or non caucasians.. which in the south becomes a VERY big limitation on my dating pool. I mean I really don't think I'm being *That* limiting to be honest.. to expect similar social backgrounds and similar lifestyles and similar religious and political views. If I wanted to get REALLY technical I'd divide the entire number by 13% since thats about the percentage of caucasians who have the phenotype I prefer, and would require in so far as a long term mate was concerned.

And yeah, I remember you telling me that, and you're not the only one who's told me that.. but it still doesn't matter since I still *Can't* do it. my economic situation still hasn't changed. So it leaves me precisely where I've always been.. able to see a possible solution but not able to act upon it. At this point it would be massively counter productive to move to some place like St. Paul/Minneonappolis, Seattle, Portland, Eugene, and another very small list of potential locations which meet my climactic requirements. All of this could more or less be resolved if the governments of the countries would get their heads out of there asses and let me move to where all my family and social networks really are.. England.



rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 4:30 pm

It also dawned on me that I was including age twice.. once in the normal equation and once in the "Attractiveness" equation.. so actually I'd say it should be about 10% higher for each of my numbers to correct for that.. meaning there might actually be 2.3 girls in my town that I might find attractive.. but I've still already lost one of them..



Zodai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,023
Location: Walnut Creek/Concord, California

14 Feb 2013, 5:04 pm

Well;

Why don't you just use the WP members instead; and see if any of those in the set live near you?


_________________
If you believe in anything, believe in yourself. Only then will your life remain your own.

Author/Writer


rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

14 Feb 2013, 5:13 pm

That would be an even smaller population set.